Background
The April 28, 2025 federal election in Terrebonne, Quebec, ended with Liberal candidate Tatiana Auguste defeating Bloc Québécois candidate Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné by one vote after a judicial recount. An Elections Canada employee had printed an incorrect postal code on prepaid return envelopes for several mail-in ballots. Although the employee discovered the mistake more than three weeks before election day, he neither reported it to supervisors nor contacted the affected voters.
One elector’s ballot was returned to her undelivered after election day and was never counted. Sinclair-Desgagné contested the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that the honest, inadvertent error was not an “irregularity” and stating that it would not have annulled the election in any event. Sinclair-Desgagné appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.
The Court’s Holding
By a 6–3 majority, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and annulled the Terrebonne election. It held that an “irregularity” under s. 524(1)(b) can include a serious administrative error that is honest, unintentional, and does not breach a statutory provision. The decisive consideration is whether the error was capable of undermining a voter’s franchise.
Applying the three-step framework from Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, the majority found that the incorrect postal code, combined with Elections Canada’s failure to correct its known mistake, was a serious administrative error; that it affected the vote count by directly preventing a ballot from being received and counted; and that annulment was warranted because the single affected vote equalled the one-vote margin of victory. Ballot secrecy made the elector’s candidate preference irrelevant. The majority also rejected the view that statutory provisions assigning mail-in voters responsibility for timely receipt insulated Elections Canada from consequences arising from its own correctable error.
The dissent would have dismissed the appeal. It characterized the mistake as a minor, isolated human error that did not meet the high threshold for an irregularity and emphasized the statutory responsibility of mail-in voters to ensure their ballots are received on time.
Key Takeaways
- An honest and unintentional administrative error may qualify as an electoral irregularity if it is serious and capable of undermining a voter’s franchise.
- To annul an election, an applicant must prove an irregularity, show that it affected the vote count, and persuade the court to exercise its remedial discretion.
- When a known, correctable official error prevents one vote from being counted and that vote equals the margin of victory, annulment may be necessary even without fraud or bad faith.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that federal election challenges are not limited to statutory violations or intentional misconduct. Election officials’ serious, correctable administrative errors can justify judicial intervention when they prevent an eligible elector from voting and cast doubt on who won.
At the same time, the Court described the ruling as narrow: ordinary human error will not automatically reopen an election. The demanding three-step test and the requirement of proof on a balance of probabilities preserve the finality of election results while preventing a known official mistake from deciding an exceptionally close race.